Pharmacology

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.

The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.

In fact, there was a small increase found in risk for depression or depressive symptoms with omega-3 supplements.

“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.

The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
 

Assessing general population risk

For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.

“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.

The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.

Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.

“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
 

No significant benefit

Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.

The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).

There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).

“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.

“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.

“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.

Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
 

Cautionary notes

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.

First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.

He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.

Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.

The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.

In fact, there was a small increase found in risk for depression or depressive symptoms with omega-3 supplements.

“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.

The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
 

Assessing general population risk

For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.

“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.

The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.

Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.

“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
 

No significant benefit

Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.

The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).

There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).

“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.

“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.

“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.

Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
 

Cautionary notes

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.

First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.

He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.

Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.

The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.

In fact, there was a small increase found in risk for depression or depressive symptoms with omega-3 supplements.

“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.

The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
 

Assessing general population risk

For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.

“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.

The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.

Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.

“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
 

No significant benefit

Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.

The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).

There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).

“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.

“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.

“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.

Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
 

Cautionary notes

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.

First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.

He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.

Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SILVER SPRING, MD – The FDA issued approval for long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) on Dec. 21, providing an alternative to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDC-FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV acquisition.

The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.

“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations. 

“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
 

Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC

Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.

Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations. 

Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence. 
 

Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations

Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).

Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.

Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.

In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”

The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted. 

“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.

Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”

Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.

“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.

“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SILVER SPRING, MD – The FDA issued approval for long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) on Dec. 21, providing an alternative to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDC-FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV acquisition.

The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.

“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations. 

“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
 

Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC

Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.

Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations. 

Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence. 
 

Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations

Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).

Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.

Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.

In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”

The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted. 

“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.

Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”

Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.

“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.

“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SILVER SPRING, MD – The FDA issued approval for long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) on Dec. 21, providing an alternative to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDC-FTC) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV acquisition.

The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.

“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations. 

“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
 

Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC

Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.

Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations. 

Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence. 
 

Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations

Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).

Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.

Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.

In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”

The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted. 

“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.

Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”

Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.

“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.

“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that women no longer will have to pick up the abortion pill mifepristone (Mifeprex) in person at certain certified sites and can get a prescription via an online consultation and delivery through the mail.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and in December the agency made that decision permanent.

As this news organization reported on April 12, 2021, acting commissioner of food and drugs, Janet Woodcock, MD, stated that the FDA would “permit the dispensing of mifepristone through the mail when done by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber; or through a mail-order pharmacy under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”

That decision came after suspension of the in-person dispensing requirement in response to COVID-19 safety concerns for patients as well as providers associated with in-person clinic visits.
 

Decision comes amid Supreme Court debate

The FDA decision comes as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to overturn its 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Additionally, the Supreme Court on returned a lawsuit over Texas’ ban on abortions after 6 weeks to a federal appeals court that has twice allowed the law to stay in effect, rather than to a district judge who wanted it blocked.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement, “Abortion is time sensitive, essential health care, and this decision will remove a sometimes insurmountable barrier for patients seeking an abortion. With abortion rights at risk like never before, the FDA’s decision is a long overdue step toward expanding people’s access to safe medication abortion.”

Georgeanne Usova, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union told CNBC News: “The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients.”

Catherine D. Cansino, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, and member of the editorial advisory board for ObGyn News said in an interview: “I think that this change is a long time coming and speaks to the fact that science matters and medicine prevails over politics. We need to protect health rights first!”

Others expressed doubt or outrage.

Fidelma Rigby, MD, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, division of maternal fetal medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, said in an interview: “My concern is that what if there is an ectopic pregnancy? I’m not as enthusiastic as some of my partners would be about this announcement.”

“The FDA’s decision today places women at risk,” said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “These changes do not make this abortion process safer for women. What these changes do is make the process easier for the abortion industry.”

The antiabortion groups Charlotte Lozier Institute and the Susan B. Anthony List were among other organizations issuing statements against Dec. 16’s FDA ruling.

The FDA stated that mifepristone prescribers will still need to earn certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The FDA said in updated guidance on its website that after conducting a review of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, it “determined that the data support modification of the REMS to reduce burden on patient access and the health care delivery system and to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh the risks.”

The modifications include:

• “Removing the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only in certain health care settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals (referred to as the ‘in-person dispensing requirement’).”
• Adding a requirement that pharmacies must be certified to dispense the drug.

The FDA said removing the in-person dispensing rule will allow delivery of mifepristone by mail via certified prescribers or pharmacies, in addition to in-person dispensing in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals.

In 2018, an expert National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine panel concluded that requiring that medication abortion be provided at only certain facilities, solely by a physician or in the physical presence of certain providers, did not improve safety or quality of care.

Mifepristone is used, together with misoprostol, to end an early pregnancy. The FDA first approved Mifeprex in 2000 for use through 10 weeks’ gestation. According to the FDA, mifepristone is approved in more than 60 other countries.
 

Many states bar mailing of abortion pills

However, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 19 U.S. states have laws that bar telehealth consultations or mailing of abortion pills.

Reuters reported that women in those states would not be able to make use of the rule change get the drug delivered to their home but could potentially travel to other states to obtain medication abortion.

“States such as California and New York that have sought to strengthen access to abortion may make the drug available to women from other states,” Reuters reported.

Jessica Arons, senior advocacy and policy counsel for reproductive freedom at the ACLU, told CBS News, “Medication abortion is one more lens through which we see that we are witnessing a tale of two countries. Half the states are protecting access to abortion and half are trying every single way they can to eliminate access to abortion care.”
 

Positive results when Canada lifted restrictions

As this news organization has reported, a study found positive results when Canada lifted restrictions on access to the abortion pills and a good safety profile for mifepristone.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found abortion rates remained stable and adverse events were rare after mifepristone prescribing restrictions were lifted in Canada.

Senior author Wendy V. Norman, MD, professor in the department of family practice at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a statement, “Our study is a signal to other countries that restrictions are not necessary to ensure patient safety.”

Another recent study in JAMA Network Open (2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22320) found that abortion via telehealth prescriptions may be just as safe and effective as in-person care.

The study investigators said that, “of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.”

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.

Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
 

‘Positioned to launch immediately’

The new indication stems from results of two phase 3 studies that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.

In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.

Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.

Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.

Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.

Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
 

‘Positioned to launch immediately’

The new indication stems from results of two phase 3 studies that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.

In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.

Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.

Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.

Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.

Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
 

‘Positioned to launch immediately’

The new indication stems from results of two phase 3 studies that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.

In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.

Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.

Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.

Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research provides more evidence that antipsychotics that raise prolactin levels are tied to a significantly increased risk for breast cancer.

The relative risk for breast cancer was 62% higher in women who took category 1 antipsychotic medications associated with high prolactin levels. These include haloperidol (Haldol), paliperidone (Invega), and risperidone (Risperdal). Additionally, the risk was 54% higher in those taking category 2 antipsychotics that have mid-range effects on prolactin. These include iloperidone (Fanapt), lurasidone (Latuda), and olanzapine (Zyprexa).

In contrast, category 3 antipsychotics which have a lesser effect on prolactin levels were not associated with any increase in breast cancer risk. These drugs include aripiprazole (Abilify), asenapine (Saphris), brexpiprazole (Rexulti), cariprazine (Vraylar), clozapine (multiple brands), quetiapine (Seroquel), and ziprasidone (Geodon).

While the “absolute” breast cancer risk for these drugs is unclear, “we can make the case that high circulating prolactin levels are associated with breast cancer risk. This follows what is already known about prolactin from prior studies, notably the nurses’ health studies,” Tahir Rahman, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, told this news organization.

“We don’t want to alarm patients taking antipsychotic drugs for life-threatening mental health problems, but we also think it is time for doctors to track prolactin levels and vigilantly monitor their patients who are being treated with antipsychotics,” Dr. Rahman added in a news release.

The study was published online Dec. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
 

Test prolactin levels

Using administrative claims data, the researchers evaluated breast cancer risk in women aged 18-64 exposed to antipsychotic medications compared with anticonvulsants and/or lithium. 

They identified 914 cases of invasive breast cancer among 540,737 women.

Roughly 52% of the study population filled at least one prescription for a category 3 antipsychotic agent, whereas 15% filled at least one prescription for a category 1 agent; 49% of women filled at least one prescription for an anticonvulsant medication during the study period.

Exposure to all antipsychotics was independently associated with a 35% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61), the study team found.

Compared with anticonvulsants or lithium, the risk for breast cancer was significantly increased for high prolactin (category 1) antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.30-2.03) and for mid-prolactin (category 2) drugs (aHR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-1.99), with no increased risk for category 3 antipsychotics.

“Our research is obviously of interest for preventing breast cancer in antipsychotic-treated patients. Checking a blood prolactin level is cheap and easy [and a high level is] fairly simple to mitigate,” said Dr. Rahman.
 

A matter of debate

Reached for comment, Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said, “The potential elevation of breast cancer risk depending on the dose and time of treatment with antipsychotic medications with varying degrees of prolactin-raising properties has been a topic of research and matter of debate.”

This new study “adds another data point indicating that antipsychotics that are associated on average with a higher prolactin-raising effect than other antipsychotics may increase the risk of breast cancer in women to some degree,” said Dr. Correll, who was not involved with the study.

However, he cautioned that “naturalistic data are always vulnerable to residual confounding, for example, unmeasured effects that could also at least partially explain the results, and the follow-up time of only 4 years (maximum 6 years) in this study was relatively short.

“Nevertheless, given availability of many different antipsychotics with varying degrees of prolactin-raising potential, in women requiring antipsychotic treatment, less prolactin-raising antipsychotics may be preferable,” Dr. Correll said.

“In women receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics for medium- and longer-term maintenance therapy, prolactin levels should be monitored,” he added.

When an elevated prolactin level is detected, this should be addressed “either via dose reduction, a switch to an alternative antipsychotic that does not raise prolactin levels significantly, or the addition of a partial or full D2 agonist when the prolactin-raising antipsychotic should be continued based on individualized risk assessment,” Dr. Correll advised.

This work was supported by an award from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll has received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research provides more evidence that antipsychotics that raise prolactin levels are tied to a significantly increased risk for breast cancer.

The relative risk for breast cancer was 62% higher in women who took category 1 antipsychotic medications associated with high prolactin levels. These include haloperidol (Haldol), paliperidone (Invega), and risperidone (Risperdal). Additionally, the risk was 54% higher in those taking category 2 antipsychotics that have mid-range effects on prolactin. These include iloperidone (Fanapt), lurasidone (Latuda), and olanzapine (Zyprexa).

In contrast, category 3 antipsychotics which have a lesser effect on prolactin levels were not associated with any increase in breast cancer risk. These drugs include aripiprazole (Abilify), asenapine (Saphris), brexpiprazole (Rexulti), cariprazine (Vraylar), clozapine (multiple brands), quetiapine (Seroquel), and ziprasidone (Geodon).

While the “absolute” breast cancer risk for these drugs is unclear, “we can make the case that high circulating prolactin levels are associated with breast cancer risk. This follows what is already known about prolactin from prior studies, notably the nurses’ health studies,” Tahir Rahman, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, told this news organization.

“We don’t want to alarm patients taking antipsychotic drugs for life-threatening mental health problems, but we also think it is time for doctors to track prolactin levels and vigilantly monitor their patients who are being treated with antipsychotics,” Dr. Rahman added in a news release.

The study was published online Dec. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
 

Test prolactin levels

Using administrative claims data, the researchers evaluated breast cancer risk in women aged 18-64 exposed to antipsychotic medications compared with anticonvulsants and/or lithium. 

They identified 914 cases of invasive breast cancer among 540,737 women.

Roughly 52% of the study population filled at least one prescription for a category 3 antipsychotic agent, whereas 15% filled at least one prescription for a category 1 agent; 49% of women filled at least one prescription for an anticonvulsant medication during the study period.

Exposure to all antipsychotics was independently associated with a 35% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61), the study team found.

Compared with anticonvulsants or lithium, the risk for breast cancer was significantly increased for high prolactin (category 1) antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.30-2.03) and for mid-prolactin (category 2) drugs (aHR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-1.99), with no increased risk for category 3 antipsychotics.

“Our research is obviously of interest for preventing breast cancer in antipsychotic-treated patients. Checking a blood prolactin level is cheap and easy [and a high level is] fairly simple to mitigate,” said Dr. Rahman.
 

A matter of debate

Reached for comment, Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said, “The potential elevation of breast cancer risk depending on the dose and time of treatment with antipsychotic medications with varying degrees of prolactin-raising properties has been a topic of research and matter of debate.”

This new study “adds another data point indicating that antipsychotics that are associated on average with a higher prolactin-raising effect than other antipsychotics may increase the risk of breast cancer in women to some degree,” said Dr. Correll, who was not involved with the study.

However, he cautioned that “naturalistic data are always vulnerable to residual confounding, for example, unmeasured effects that could also at least partially explain the results, and the follow-up time of only 4 years (maximum 6 years) in this study was relatively short.

“Nevertheless, given availability of many different antipsychotics with varying degrees of prolactin-raising potential, in women requiring antipsychotic treatment, less prolactin-raising antipsychotics may be preferable,” Dr. Correll said.

“In women receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics for medium- and longer-term maintenance therapy, prolactin levels should be monitored,” he added.

When an elevated prolactin level is detected, this should be addressed “either via dose reduction, a switch to an alternative antipsychotic that does not raise prolactin levels significantly, or the addition of a partial or full D2 agonist when the prolactin-raising antipsychotic should be continued based on individualized risk assessment,” Dr. Correll advised.

This work was supported by an award from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll has received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New research provides more evidence that antipsychotics that raise prolactin levels are tied to a significantly increased risk for breast cancer.

The relative risk for breast cancer was 62% higher in women who took category 1 antipsychotic medications associated with high prolactin levels. These include haloperidol (Haldol), paliperidone (Invega), and risperidone (Risperdal). Additionally, the risk was 54% higher in those taking category 2 antipsychotics that have mid-range effects on prolactin. These include iloperidone (Fanapt), lurasidone (Latuda), and olanzapine (Zyprexa).

In contrast, category 3 antipsychotics which have a lesser effect on prolactin levels were not associated with any increase in breast cancer risk. These drugs include aripiprazole (Abilify), asenapine (Saphris), brexpiprazole (Rexulti), cariprazine (Vraylar), clozapine (multiple brands), quetiapine (Seroquel), and ziprasidone (Geodon).

While the “absolute” breast cancer risk for these drugs is unclear, “we can make the case that high circulating prolactin levels are associated with breast cancer risk. This follows what is already known about prolactin from prior studies, notably the nurses’ health studies,” Tahir Rahman, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, told this news organization.

“We don’t want to alarm patients taking antipsychotic drugs for life-threatening mental health problems, but we also think it is time for doctors to track prolactin levels and vigilantly monitor their patients who are being treated with antipsychotics,” Dr. Rahman added in a news release.

The study was published online Dec. 3 in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
 

Test prolactin levels

Using administrative claims data, the researchers evaluated breast cancer risk in women aged 18-64 exposed to antipsychotic medications compared with anticonvulsants and/or lithium. 

They identified 914 cases of invasive breast cancer among 540,737 women.

Roughly 52% of the study population filled at least one prescription for a category 3 antipsychotic agent, whereas 15% filled at least one prescription for a category 1 agent; 49% of women filled at least one prescription for an anticonvulsant medication during the study period.

Exposure to all antipsychotics was independently associated with a 35% increased risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61), the study team found.

Compared with anticonvulsants or lithium, the risk for breast cancer was significantly increased for high prolactin (category 1) antipsychotics (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.30-2.03) and for mid-prolactin (category 2) drugs (aHR 1.54; 95% CI, 1.19-1.99), with no increased risk for category 3 antipsychotics.

“Our research is obviously of interest for preventing breast cancer in antipsychotic-treated patients. Checking a blood prolactin level is cheap and easy [and a high level is] fairly simple to mitigate,” said Dr. Rahman.
 

A matter of debate

Reached for comment, Christoph Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said, “The potential elevation of breast cancer risk depending on the dose and time of treatment with antipsychotic medications with varying degrees of prolactin-raising properties has been a topic of research and matter of debate.”

This new study “adds another data point indicating that antipsychotics that are associated on average with a higher prolactin-raising effect than other antipsychotics may increase the risk of breast cancer in women to some degree,” said Dr. Correll, who was not involved with the study.

However, he cautioned that “naturalistic data are always vulnerable to residual confounding, for example, unmeasured effects that could also at least partially explain the results, and the follow-up time of only 4 years (maximum 6 years) in this study was relatively short.

“Nevertheless, given availability of many different antipsychotics with varying degrees of prolactin-raising potential, in women requiring antipsychotic treatment, less prolactin-raising antipsychotics may be preferable,” Dr. Correll said.

“In women receiving prolactin-raising antipsychotics for medium- and longer-term maintenance therapy, prolactin levels should be monitored,” he added.

When an elevated prolactin level is detected, this should be addressed “either via dose reduction, a switch to an alternative antipsychotic that does not raise prolactin levels significantly, or the addition of a partial or full D2 agonist when the prolactin-raising antipsychotic should be continued based on individualized risk assessment,” Dr. Correll advised.

This work was supported by an award from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research; and the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Correll has received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have outcomes in response to the antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (Trodelvy, Gilead) comparable to those of the overall patient population, with the drug showing similar efficacy and safety, shows a prespecified analysis of ASCENT.

A heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes, mTNBC has an incidence rate twice as high in Black as in White women.

Black women with mTNBC may also experience worse outcomes than other groups, with a greater risk of mortality related to disparities in access to health care and in income, delays in treatment, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and differences in tumor biology.

Previously presented data from the phase 3 ASCENT trial showed that SG nearly doubled overall survival versus single-agent chemotherapy in pretreated women with mTNBC, with the benefit observed across patient subgroups.

Based on these findings, the Food and Drug Administration approved SG for patients with mTNBC who have received at least two prior chemotherapies, at least one of which is to have been given in the metastatic setting.

Now, an analysis of the ASCENT data in just over 60 Black women with mTNBC showed that they can expect to see their progression-free survival (PFS) improve by 56% and their overall survival increase by a nonsignificant 36% when given SG as opposed to single-agent chemotherapy.

The research (abstract P5-16-07) was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10.

The team says that Black women with mTNBC “derived a similar clinical benefit” from SG versus chemotherapy to other women in the study, and had a “manageable” safety profile, which was “consistent with the full trial population.”

Consequently, SG “should be considered a treatment option for Black patients with mTNBC who have received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies,” at least one of which having been given in the metastatic setting.

Lead researcher Lisa A. Carey, MD, told this news organiztion that it is “very important” to show that the drug works in Black patients, adding: “We know that certain drugs don’t perform so well and it’s also true that people of color are particularly affected by TNBC.”

She said there were “only 62” Black patients in ASCENT, “so if you look at the entire trial and make assumptions that the drug performs the same in all the subsets, then sometimes you’re wrong.”

Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, N.C., said there is “emerging interest” in racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

“Black patients have more trouble with access to care,” she said, noting that “in trial populations, [the outcomes] generally seem similar because the patients who go onto the trials tend to be those that can participate, but you never know until you look.”

Overall, Dr. Carey said the current results suggest that, “at least from the standpoint of the therapeutic implications of this drug – which is really a pretty remarkable drug in the overall study – it behaves very similarly in this group.”

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said: “We have known that minority patients, especially Black patients, have a higher rate of triple negative breast cancer and aggressive biologies, and have had worse breast cancer outcomes in many published series.”

She told this news organization that, “additionally, they are often underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials.”

Dr. Litton said “the very favorable outcomes” reported in “this important subset of patients who participated in the ASCENT trial” confirm the use of SG in patients with mTNBC.

To examine the clinical outcomes of Black patients in the ASCENT study, the team conduced a prespecified analysis of participants self-reporting Black race who had been randomized to SG or single-agent chemotherapy of physician’s choice, including those with and without brain metastases.

Of the 529 patients enrolled to ASCENT, 62 (12%) were Black, of whom 28 were assigned to SG and 34 to single agent chemotherapy. The two groups were generally well balanced, although six patients in the chemotherapy arm had known brain metastases at baseline versus none of those given SG.

After a median treatment duration of 5.3 months with SG and 1.6 months for single-agent chemotherapy, there was a significant improvement in PFS with SG, at 5.4 months versus 2.2 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.44 (P = .008).

There was also a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with SG at 13.8 months versus 8.5 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .159).

The objective response rate was 32% with SG versus 6% in patients given chemotherapy, while the median duration of response was 9.2 months in the SG arm and not evaluable for chemotherapy.

The researchers note that these efficacy findings were “consistent” with those seen in the full ASCENT study population.

In terms of safety, the most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, seen in 64% of SG and 61% of chemotherapy patients, diarrhea in 64% and 13%, respectively, and fatigue, in 52% and 39%, respectively.

The most common grade ≥3 events were neutropenia, in 48% and 42% of SG and chemotherapy patients, respectively, followed by anemia, in 12% and 6%, respectively, leukopenia in 8% and 16%, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 8% and 3%, respectively.

No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm.

Dose reduction due to treatment-emergent adverse events was recorded in 28% of patients receiving SG and 35% of those assigned to single-agent chemotherapy, and discontinuations occurred in 0% and 3%, respectively.

The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Carey reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and GSK; spouse serves on the board of Falcon Therapeutics.

Black women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have outcomes in response to the antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (Trodelvy, Gilead) comparable to those of the overall patient population, with the drug showing similar efficacy and safety, shows a prespecified analysis of ASCENT.

A heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes, mTNBC has an incidence rate twice as high in Black as in White women.

Black women with mTNBC may also experience worse outcomes than other groups, with a greater risk of mortality related to disparities in access to health care and in income, delays in treatment, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and differences in tumor biology.

Previously presented data from the phase 3 ASCENT trial showed that SG nearly doubled overall survival versus single-agent chemotherapy in pretreated women with mTNBC, with the benefit observed across patient subgroups.

Based on these findings, the Food and Drug Administration approved SG for patients with mTNBC who have received at least two prior chemotherapies, at least one of which is to have been given in the metastatic setting.

Now, an analysis of the ASCENT data in just over 60 Black women with mTNBC showed that they can expect to see their progression-free survival (PFS) improve by 56% and their overall survival increase by a nonsignificant 36% when given SG as opposed to single-agent chemotherapy.

The research (abstract P5-16-07) was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10.

The team says that Black women with mTNBC “derived a similar clinical benefit” from SG versus chemotherapy to other women in the study, and had a “manageable” safety profile, which was “consistent with the full trial population.”

Consequently, SG “should be considered a treatment option for Black patients with mTNBC who have received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies,” at least one of which having been given in the metastatic setting.

Lead researcher Lisa A. Carey, MD, told this news organiztion that it is “very important” to show that the drug works in Black patients, adding: “We know that certain drugs don’t perform so well and it’s also true that people of color are particularly affected by TNBC.”

She said there were “only 62” Black patients in ASCENT, “so if you look at the entire trial and make assumptions that the drug performs the same in all the subsets, then sometimes you’re wrong.”

Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, N.C., said there is “emerging interest” in racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

“Black patients have more trouble with access to care,” she said, noting that “in trial populations, [the outcomes] generally seem similar because the patients who go onto the trials tend to be those that can participate, but you never know until you look.”

Overall, Dr. Carey said the current results suggest that, “at least from the standpoint of the therapeutic implications of this drug – which is really a pretty remarkable drug in the overall study – it behaves very similarly in this group.”

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said: “We have known that minority patients, especially Black patients, have a higher rate of triple negative breast cancer and aggressive biologies, and have had worse breast cancer outcomes in many published series.”

She told this news organization that, “additionally, they are often underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials.”

Dr. Litton said “the very favorable outcomes” reported in “this important subset of patients who participated in the ASCENT trial” confirm the use of SG in patients with mTNBC.

To examine the clinical outcomes of Black patients in the ASCENT study, the team conduced a prespecified analysis of participants self-reporting Black race who had been randomized to SG or single-agent chemotherapy of physician’s choice, including those with and without brain metastases.

Of the 529 patients enrolled to ASCENT, 62 (12%) were Black, of whom 28 were assigned to SG and 34 to single agent chemotherapy. The two groups were generally well balanced, although six patients in the chemotherapy arm had known brain metastases at baseline versus none of those given SG.

After a median treatment duration of 5.3 months with SG and 1.6 months for single-agent chemotherapy, there was a significant improvement in PFS with SG, at 5.4 months versus 2.2 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.44 (P = .008).

There was also a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with SG at 13.8 months versus 8.5 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .159).

The objective response rate was 32% with SG versus 6% in patients given chemotherapy, while the median duration of response was 9.2 months in the SG arm and not evaluable for chemotherapy.

The researchers note that these efficacy findings were “consistent” with those seen in the full ASCENT study population.

In terms of safety, the most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, seen in 64% of SG and 61% of chemotherapy patients, diarrhea in 64% and 13%, respectively, and fatigue, in 52% and 39%, respectively.

The most common grade ≥3 events were neutropenia, in 48% and 42% of SG and chemotherapy patients, respectively, followed by anemia, in 12% and 6%, respectively, leukopenia in 8% and 16%, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 8% and 3%, respectively.

No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm.

Dose reduction due to treatment-emergent adverse events was recorded in 28% of patients receiving SG and 35% of those assigned to single-agent chemotherapy, and discontinuations occurred in 0% and 3%, respectively.

The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Carey reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and GSK; spouse serves on the board of Falcon Therapeutics.

Black women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have outcomes in response to the antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) (Trodelvy, Gilead) comparable to those of the overall patient population, with the drug showing similar efficacy and safety, shows a prespecified analysis of ASCENT.

A heterogenous disease with few treatment options and poor outcomes, mTNBC has an incidence rate twice as high in Black as in White women.

Black women with mTNBC may also experience worse outcomes than other groups, with a greater risk of mortality related to disparities in access to health care and in income, delays in treatment, a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and differences in tumor biology.

Previously presented data from the phase 3 ASCENT trial showed that SG nearly doubled overall survival versus single-agent chemotherapy in pretreated women with mTNBC, with the benefit observed across patient subgroups.

Based on these findings, the Food and Drug Administration approved SG for patients with mTNBC who have received at least two prior chemotherapies, at least one of which is to have been given in the metastatic setting.

Now, an analysis of the ASCENT data in just over 60 Black women with mTNBC showed that they can expect to see their progression-free survival (PFS) improve by 56% and their overall survival increase by a nonsignificant 36% when given SG as opposed to single-agent chemotherapy.

The research (abstract P5-16-07) was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium on Dec. 10.

The team says that Black women with mTNBC “derived a similar clinical benefit” from SG versus chemotherapy to other women in the study, and had a “manageable” safety profile, which was “consistent with the full trial population.”

Consequently, SG “should be considered a treatment option for Black patients with mTNBC who have received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapies,” at least one of which having been given in the metastatic setting.

Lead researcher Lisa A. Carey, MD, told this news organiztion that it is “very important” to show that the drug works in Black patients, adding: “We know that certain drugs don’t perform so well and it’s also true that people of color are particularly affected by TNBC.”

She said there were “only 62” Black patients in ASCENT, “so if you look at the entire trial and make assumptions that the drug performs the same in all the subsets, then sometimes you’re wrong.”

Dr. Carey, the Richardson and Marilyn Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor in Breast Cancer Research, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, N.C., said there is “emerging interest” in racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

“Black patients have more trouble with access to care,” she said, noting that “in trial populations, [the outcomes] generally seem similar because the patients who go onto the trials tend to be those that can participate, but you never know until you look.”

Overall, Dr. Carey said the current results suggest that, “at least from the standpoint of the therapeutic implications of this drug – which is really a pretty remarkable drug in the overall study – it behaves very similarly in this group.”

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, vice president of clinical research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said: “We have known that minority patients, especially Black patients, have a higher rate of triple negative breast cancer and aggressive biologies, and have had worse breast cancer outcomes in many published series.”

She told this news organization that, “additionally, they are often underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials.”

Dr. Litton said “the very favorable outcomes” reported in “this important subset of patients who participated in the ASCENT trial” confirm the use of SG in patients with mTNBC.

To examine the clinical outcomes of Black patients in the ASCENT study, the team conduced a prespecified analysis of participants self-reporting Black race who had been randomized to SG or single-agent chemotherapy of physician’s choice, including those with and without brain metastases.

Of the 529 patients enrolled to ASCENT, 62 (12%) were Black, of whom 28 were assigned to SG and 34 to single agent chemotherapy. The two groups were generally well balanced, although six patients in the chemotherapy arm had known brain metastases at baseline versus none of those given SG.

After a median treatment duration of 5.3 months with SG and 1.6 months for single-agent chemotherapy, there was a significant improvement in PFS with SG, at 5.4 months versus 2.2 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.44 (P = .008).

There was also a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with SG at 13.8 months versus 8.5 months for chemotherapy, and a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P = .159).

The objective response rate was 32% with SG versus 6% in patients given chemotherapy, while the median duration of response was 9.2 months in the SG arm and not evaluable for chemotherapy.

The researchers note that these efficacy findings were “consistent” with those seen in the full ASCENT study population.

In terms of safety, the most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, seen in 64% of SG and 61% of chemotherapy patients, diarrhea in 64% and 13%, respectively, and fatigue, in 52% and 39%, respectively.

The most common grade ≥3 events were neutropenia, in 48% and 42% of SG and chemotherapy patients, respectively, followed by anemia, in 12% and 6%, respectively, leukopenia in 8% and 16%, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in 8% and 3%, respectively.

No treatment-related deaths occurred in either treatment arm.

Dose reduction due to treatment-emergent adverse events was recorded in 28% of patients receiving SG and 35% of those assigned to single-agent chemotherapy, and discontinuations occurred in 0% and 3%, respectively.

The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Carey reports research funding from Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, and GSK; spouse serves on the board of Falcon Therapeutics.

The cutoff for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for using pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is able to identify patients who are expected to derive most benefit, shows an analysis of KEYNOTE-355 recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-355 – which is a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of 847 patients – were stratified by CPS scores of at least 1 and at least 10, with the latter group in which adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was shown to significantly improve both overall survival and progression-free survival.

As it was unclear whether taking a more fine-grained approach would reveal specific CPS scores at which pembrolizumab would be beneficial, Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Barcelona, and colleagues divided the patients into four CPS levels: less than 1, 1-9, 10-19, and at least 20.

Patients with a CPS 10-19 and at least 20 given pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy had an overall survival benefit of 29% and 28%, respectively, while the PFS improvement was 30% and 38%. In the CPS of less than 1 and 1-9 groups, there were no discernible benefits from adding the checkpoint inhibitor.

“Given the similar outcomes in the CPS 10-19 and the CPS ≥20 subgroups, a CPS of 10 or more is a reasonable cutoff to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC that might have benefit from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy,” Dr. Cortes said. “In my opinion, these results provide further support for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a good option, maybe a standard of care for some patients ... with local recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-1 CPS ≥10.”

Invited discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, said the study demonstrates that PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 is “clearly the optimal cutoff for differentiating benefit from pembrolizumab” and confirms the combination with chemotherapy as a “standard of care in this population”.

However, there are a number of outstanding questions in the metastatic setting, she said, including the test used to determine PD-L1 expression.

“Clearly the test that you order should be matched to the planned checkpoint inhibitor, and we look forward to additional data” on the relative overlap of the assays used in both the current study and in KEYNOTE-522.

However, IMpassion130 showed there is “incomplete overlap in terms of the two antibodies and tests that have been used to define PD-L1 positivity in breast cancer,” said Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“For excellent responders, can chemotherapy and eventually immunotherapy be discontinued, and when is it optimal? How long should we be continuing the combination and how long should we continue the checkpoint inhibitor alone?” she asked.

“Certainly in my own clinical practice,” Dr. Rugo explained, “in those excellent responders, it’s difficult to know when to stop the checkpoint inhibitor, but sometimes toxicity tells us the answer to that question. At some point, we need to stop therapy and understand what happens to those patients.”

She said that only 38% of patients in the current study benefited from pembrolizumab. “How can we amplify the immune response in those patients who do not have PD-L1–positive disease to further extend this benefit, and can we extend the efficacy to other subtypes? There are ongoing studies evaluating this question,” Dr. Rugo said.

Dr. Cortes said that KEYNOTE-355 showed the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mTNBC.

However, that benefit was seen only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while there was no statistically significant improvement in either PFS or overall survival in those with a CPS of at least 1.

He explained that 847 patients with previously untreated locally recurrent or metastatic TNBC, or those who had been treated at least 6 months prior to disease recurrence, were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy.

For the current analysis, they substratified patients by PD-L1 CPS into less than 1, which accounted for 24.9% of patients; 1-9, seen in 36.2%-38.4%; 10-19, accounting for 13.9%-14.1%; and at least 20, seen in 22.8%-24.7% of patients.

Dr. Cortes said the overall survival rate among patients with CPS of at least 10 was 70.5% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 81.6% for those assigned to placebo, at a significant hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = .0093).

Among patients with CPS of at least 1, the overall survival rate was 79.1% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 83.9% in those given placebo, at a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.86. This translated into an HR of 0.89 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Turning to the novel subgroups, Dr. Cortes showed that the HR for overall survival for pembrolizumab versus placebo was nonsignificant in patients with CPS of at least 1, at 0.97, and in those with CPS 1-9, at 1.09.

However, the HRs were markedly improved in patients with CPD 10-19, at 0.71, and in those with CPS of at least 20, at 0.72, showing that the “relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was pretty much the same ... suggesting that CPS ≥10 could be a reasonable cutoff.”

In both of these groups, there was a sustained separation in the overall survival curves starting at around 10 months.

Turning to the PFS results, Dr Cortes said the event-free rate was 65.5% with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while those given placebo had a rate of 78.6%, at an HR of 0.66.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1, the HR was 0.75, or 0.82 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

“As with overall survival,” he said, there was a “trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, although the PFS benefit in the pembro arm was slightly greater in the CPS ≥20 subgroup, compared to the CPS 10-19 subgroup.”

However, they highlighted that the difference was “small and the confidence intervals clearly overlapped.”

Why does PD-L1 expression play a role in response to pembrolizumab in mTNBC, but not in the early disease setting as seen in KEYNOTE-522?

“This is a question we have raised many, many times and have had many debates on,” Dr. Cortes said. “They are two completely different populations with the early breast cancer setting completely different to that in metastatic disease. Maybe the microenvironment plays a different role there, maybe we have to explore more in detail other biomarkers. I also think that different drugs were used in the neoadjuvant setting. We still have many unanswered questions.”

Dr. Rugo suggested that previous studies have given some clues to these questions with reductions in PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes observed between primary and metastatic disease.

The immune differences between primary and metastatic disease lead to immune escape, she said, adding: “This is clearly complicated by mutational complexity under the pressure of treatment.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Cortes and Dr. Rugo reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The cutoff for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for using pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is able to identify patients who are expected to derive most benefit, shows an analysis of KEYNOTE-355 recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-355 – which is a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of 847 patients – were stratified by CPS scores of at least 1 and at least 10, with the latter group in which adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was shown to significantly improve both overall survival and progression-free survival.

As it was unclear whether taking a more fine-grained approach would reveal specific CPS scores at which pembrolizumab would be beneficial, Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Barcelona, and colleagues divided the patients into four CPS levels: less than 1, 1-9, 10-19, and at least 20.

Patients with a CPS 10-19 and at least 20 given pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy had an overall survival benefit of 29% and 28%, respectively, while the PFS improvement was 30% and 38%. In the CPS of less than 1 and 1-9 groups, there were no discernible benefits from adding the checkpoint inhibitor.

“Given the similar outcomes in the CPS 10-19 and the CPS ≥20 subgroups, a CPS of 10 or more is a reasonable cutoff to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC that might have benefit from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy,” Dr. Cortes said. “In my opinion, these results provide further support for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a good option, maybe a standard of care for some patients ... with local recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-1 CPS ≥10.”

Invited discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, said the study demonstrates that PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 is “clearly the optimal cutoff for differentiating benefit from pembrolizumab” and confirms the combination with chemotherapy as a “standard of care in this population”.

However, there are a number of outstanding questions in the metastatic setting, she said, including the test used to determine PD-L1 expression.

“Clearly the test that you order should be matched to the planned checkpoint inhibitor, and we look forward to additional data” on the relative overlap of the assays used in both the current study and in KEYNOTE-522.

However, IMpassion130 showed there is “incomplete overlap in terms of the two antibodies and tests that have been used to define PD-L1 positivity in breast cancer,” said Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“For excellent responders, can chemotherapy and eventually immunotherapy be discontinued, and when is it optimal? How long should we be continuing the combination and how long should we continue the checkpoint inhibitor alone?” she asked.

“Certainly in my own clinical practice,” Dr. Rugo explained, “in those excellent responders, it’s difficult to know when to stop the checkpoint inhibitor, but sometimes toxicity tells us the answer to that question. At some point, we need to stop therapy and understand what happens to those patients.”

She said that only 38% of patients in the current study benefited from pembrolizumab. “How can we amplify the immune response in those patients who do not have PD-L1–positive disease to further extend this benefit, and can we extend the efficacy to other subtypes? There are ongoing studies evaluating this question,” Dr. Rugo said.

Dr. Cortes said that KEYNOTE-355 showed the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mTNBC.

However, that benefit was seen only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while there was no statistically significant improvement in either PFS or overall survival in those with a CPS of at least 1.

He explained that 847 patients with previously untreated locally recurrent or metastatic TNBC, or those who had been treated at least 6 months prior to disease recurrence, were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy.

For the current analysis, they substratified patients by PD-L1 CPS into less than 1, which accounted for 24.9% of patients; 1-9, seen in 36.2%-38.4%; 10-19, accounting for 13.9%-14.1%; and at least 20, seen in 22.8%-24.7% of patients.

Dr. Cortes said the overall survival rate among patients with CPS of at least 10 was 70.5% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 81.6% for those assigned to placebo, at a significant hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = .0093).

Among patients with CPS of at least 1, the overall survival rate was 79.1% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 83.9% in those given placebo, at a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.86. This translated into an HR of 0.89 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Turning to the novel subgroups, Dr. Cortes showed that the HR for overall survival for pembrolizumab versus placebo was nonsignificant in patients with CPS of at least 1, at 0.97, and in those with CPS 1-9, at 1.09.

However, the HRs were markedly improved in patients with CPD 10-19, at 0.71, and in those with CPS of at least 20, at 0.72, showing that the “relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was pretty much the same ... suggesting that CPS ≥10 could be a reasonable cutoff.”

In both of these groups, there was a sustained separation in the overall survival curves starting at around 10 months.

Turning to the PFS results, Dr Cortes said the event-free rate was 65.5% with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while those given placebo had a rate of 78.6%, at an HR of 0.66.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1, the HR was 0.75, or 0.82 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

“As with overall survival,” he said, there was a “trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, although the PFS benefit in the pembro arm was slightly greater in the CPS ≥20 subgroup, compared to the CPS 10-19 subgroup.”

However, they highlighted that the difference was “small and the confidence intervals clearly overlapped.”

Why does PD-L1 expression play a role in response to pembrolizumab in mTNBC, but not in the early disease setting as seen in KEYNOTE-522?

“This is a question we have raised many, many times and have had many debates on,” Dr. Cortes said. “They are two completely different populations with the early breast cancer setting completely different to that in metastatic disease. Maybe the microenvironment plays a different role there, maybe we have to explore more in detail other biomarkers. I also think that different drugs were used in the neoadjuvant setting. We still have many unanswered questions.”

Dr. Rugo suggested that previous studies have given some clues to these questions with reductions in PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes observed between primary and metastatic disease.

The immune differences between primary and metastatic disease lead to immune escape, she said, adding: “This is clearly complicated by mutational complexity under the pressure of treatment.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Cortes and Dr. Rugo reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The cutoff for programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10 for using pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) is able to identify patients who are expected to derive most benefit, shows an analysis of KEYNOTE-355 recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-355 – which is a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial of 847 patients – were stratified by CPS scores of at least 1 and at least 10, with the latter group in which adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was shown to significantly improve both overall survival and progression-free survival.

As it was unclear whether taking a more fine-grained approach would reveal specific CPS scores at which pembrolizumab would be beneficial, Javier Cortes, MD, PhD, International Breast Cancer Center, Barcelona, and colleagues divided the patients into four CPS levels: less than 1, 1-9, 10-19, and at least 20.

Patients with a CPS 10-19 and at least 20 given pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy had an overall survival benefit of 29% and 28%, respectively, while the PFS improvement was 30% and 38%. In the CPS of less than 1 and 1-9 groups, there were no discernible benefits from adding the checkpoint inhibitor.

“Given the similar outcomes in the CPS 10-19 and the CPS ≥20 subgroups, a CPS of 10 or more is a reasonable cutoff to define the population of patients with metastatic TNBC that might have benefit from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy,” Dr. Cortes said. “In my opinion, these results provide further support for pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a good option, maybe a standard of care for some patients ... with local recurrent unresectable or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-1 CPS ≥10.”

Invited discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, said the study demonstrates that PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 is “clearly the optimal cutoff for differentiating benefit from pembrolizumab” and confirms the combination with chemotherapy as a “standard of care in this population”.

However, there are a number of outstanding questions in the metastatic setting, she said, including the test used to determine PD-L1 expression.

“Clearly the test that you order should be matched to the planned checkpoint inhibitor, and we look forward to additional data” on the relative overlap of the assays used in both the current study and in KEYNOTE-522.

However, IMpassion130 showed there is “incomplete overlap in terms of the two antibodies and tests that have been used to define PD-L1 positivity in breast cancer,” said Dr. Rugo, professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“For excellent responders, can chemotherapy and eventually immunotherapy be discontinued, and when is it optimal? How long should we be continuing the combination and how long should we continue the checkpoint inhibitor alone?” she asked.

“Certainly in my own clinical practice,” Dr. Rugo explained, “in those excellent responders, it’s difficult to know when to stop the checkpoint inhibitor, but sometimes toxicity tells us the answer to that question. At some point, we need to stop therapy and understand what happens to those patients.”

She said that only 38% of patients in the current study benefited from pembrolizumab. “How can we amplify the immune response in those patients who do not have PD-L1–positive disease to further extend this benefit, and can we extend the efficacy to other subtypes? There are ongoing studies evaluating this question,” Dr. Rugo said.

Dr. Cortes said that KEYNOTE-355 showed the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of mTNBC.

However, that benefit was seen only in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while there was no statistically significant improvement in either PFS or overall survival in those with a CPS of at least 1.

He explained that 847 patients with previously untreated locally recurrent or metastatic TNBC, or those who had been treated at least 6 months prior to disease recurrence, were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy.

For the current analysis, they substratified patients by PD-L1 CPS into less than 1, which accounted for 24.9% of patients; 1-9, seen in 36.2%-38.4%; 10-19, accounting for 13.9%-14.1%; and at least 20, seen in 22.8%-24.7% of patients.

Dr. Cortes said the overall survival rate among patients with CPS of at least 10 was 70.5% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 81.6% for those assigned to placebo, at a significant hazard ratio of 0.73 (P = .0093).

Among patients with CPS of at least 1, the overall survival rate was 79.1% with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 83.9% in those given placebo, at a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 0.86. This translated into an HR of 0.89 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

Turning to the novel subgroups, Dr. Cortes showed that the HR for overall survival for pembrolizumab versus placebo was nonsignificant in patients with CPS of at least 1, at 0.97, and in those with CPS 1-9, at 1.09.

However, the HRs were markedly improved in patients with CPD 10-19, at 0.71, and in those with CPS of at least 20, at 0.72, showing that the “relative benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy was pretty much the same ... suggesting that CPS ≥10 could be a reasonable cutoff.”

In both of these groups, there was a sustained separation in the overall survival curves starting at around 10 months.

Turning to the PFS results, Dr Cortes said the event-free rate was 65.5% with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 10, while those given placebo had a rate of 78.6%, at an HR of 0.66.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS of at least 1, the HR was 0.75, or 0.82 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

“As with overall survival,” he said, there was a “trend toward improved efficacy with PD-L1 enrichment with the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, although the PFS benefit in the pembro arm was slightly greater in the CPS ≥20 subgroup, compared to the CPS 10-19 subgroup.”

However, they highlighted that the difference was “small and the confidence intervals clearly overlapped.”

Why does PD-L1 expression play a role in response to pembrolizumab in mTNBC, but not in the early disease setting as seen in KEYNOTE-522?

“This is a question we have raised many, many times and have had many debates on,” Dr. Cortes said. “They are two completely different populations with the early breast cancer setting completely different to that in metastatic disease. Maybe the microenvironment plays a different role there, maybe we have to explore more in detail other biomarkers. I also think that different drugs were used in the neoadjuvant setting. We still have many unanswered questions.”

Dr. Rugo suggested that previous studies have given some clues to these questions with reductions in PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes observed between primary and metastatic disease.

The immune differences between primary and metastatic disease lead to immune escape, she said, adding: “This is clearly complicated by mutational complexity under the pressure of treatment.”

The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Cortes and Dr. Rugo reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO – A small study suggests the frequent use of antibiotics among women with triple-negative breast cancer, may have an impact on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality.

The study was recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Julia D. Ransohoff, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Gut-associated lymphoid tissues are the largest component of the immune system. They influence both local and systemic immune responses, but the use of antimicrobials can decrease circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that effect the immune repertoire and in turn, the survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Ransohoff and colleagues hypothesized that increasing antimicrobial exposure in the presence of time-varying absolute lymphocyte counts may lead to higher overall and breast cancer–specific mortality. Their analysis is based on data from the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and electronic medical records from Stanford University and Sutter Health. It included 772 women who were treated for triple-negative breast cancer between 2000 and 2014. The women were followed for an average of 104 months.

In an earlier analysis of this same group, Dr. Ransohoff found that higher minimum absolute lymphocyte counts were associated with lower overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.35) and breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) The association between higher peripheral lymphocyte counts and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was significant.

In the analysis of relationships between antibiotic use and mortality, 85% of women (n = 654) were prescribed antibiotics after having been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The death rate among patients who were prescribed antibiotics was 23% (153/654), compared with 20% (24/118) among the patients who were not treated with antibiotics (which accounts for 15% of the entire group).

For total antibiotic exposure, the HR for overall mortality was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) and 1.07 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001). For unique antibiotic exposure (not counting repeat prescriptions of the same antibiotic), the HR for overall mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22; P < .001) and 1.18 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001). 

“These were all statistically significant associations derived from a statistical model that takes into account baseline patient characteristics, so the reported hazard ratios, to the best of our ability, represent the risk of death associated with antibiotic use adjusted for other baseline covariates. We’ve attempted to account for differences at baseline that may indicate patients are sicker, and so the reported risk represents mortality related with antibiotic exposure,” Dr. Ransohoff said.

Elucidating the role of the microbiome in mediating absolute lymphocyte counts and immune response may inform interventions to reduce triple-negative mortality, she said.

SAN ANTONIO – A small study suggests the frequent use of antibiotics among women with triple-negative breast cancer, may have an impact on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality.

The study was recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Julia D. Ransohoff, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Gut-associated lymphoid tissues are the largest component of the immune system. They influence both local and systemic immune responses, but the use of antimicrobials can decrease circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that effect the immune repertoire and in turn, the survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Ransohoff and colleagues hypothesized that increasing antimicrobial exposure in the presence of time-varying absolute lymphocyte counts may lead to higher overall and breast cancer–specific mortality. Their analysis is based on data from the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and electronic medical records from Stanford University and Sutter Health. It included 772 women who were treated for triple-negative breast cancer between 2000 and 2014. The women were followed for an average of 104 months.

In an earlier analysis of this same group, Dr. Ransohoff found that higher minimum absolute lymphocyte counts were associated with lower overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.35) and breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) The association between higher peripheral lymphocyte counts and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was significant.

In the analysis of relationships between antibiotic use and mortality, 85% of women (n = 654) were prescribed antibiotics after having been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The death rate among patients who were prescribed antibiotics was 23% (153/654), compared with 20% (24/118) among the patients who were not treated with antibiotics (which accounts for 15% of the entire group).

For total antibiotic exposure, the HR for overall mortality was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) and 1.07 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001). For unique antibiotic exposure (not counting repeat prescriptions of the same antibiotic), the HR for overall mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22; P < .001) and 1.18 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001). 

“These were all statistically significant associations derived from a statistical model that takes into account baseline patient characteristics, so the reported hazard ratios, to the best of our ability, represent the risk of death associated with antibiotic use adjusted for other baseline covariates. We’ve attempted to account for differences at baseline that may indicate patients are sicker, and so the reported risk represents mortality related with antibiotic exposure,” Dr. Ransohoff said.

Elucidating the role of the microbiome in mediating absolute lymphocyte counts and immune response may inform interventions to reduce triple-negative mortality, she said.

SAN ANTONIO – A small study suggests the frequent use of antibiotics among women with triple-negative breast cancer, may have an impact on overall and breast cancer–specific mortality.

The study was recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium by Julia D. Ransohoff, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

Gut-associated lymphoid tissues are the largest component of the immune system. They influence both local and systemic immune responses, but the use of antimicrobials can decrease circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that effect the immune repertoire and in turn, the survival of women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Ransohoff and colleagues hypothesized that increasing antimicrobial exposure in the presence of time-varying absolute lymphocyte counts may lead to higher overall and breast cancer–specific mortality. Their analysis is based on data from the population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry and electronic medical records from Stanford University and Sutter Health. It included 772 women who were treated for triple-negative breast cancer between 2000 and 2014. The women were followed for an average of 104 months.

In an earlier analysis of this same group, Dr. Ransohoff found that higher minimum absolute lymphocyte counts were associated with lower overall mortality (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.35) and breast cancer mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) The association between higher peripheral lymphocyte counts and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was significant.

In the analysis of relationships between antibiotic use and mortality, 85% of women (n = 654) were prescribed antibiotics after having been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The death rate among patients who were prescribed antibiotics was 23% (153/654), compared with 20% (24/118) among the patients who were not treated with antibiotics (which accounts for 15% of the entire group).

For total antibiotic exposure, the HR for overall mortality was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001) and 1.07 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001). For unique antibiotic exposure (not counting repeat prescriptions of the same antibiotic), the HR for overall mortality was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.22; P < .001) and 1.18 for breast cancer–specific mortality (95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001). 

“These were all statistically significant associations derived from a statistical model that takes into account baseline patient characteristics, so the reported hazard ratios, to the best of our ability, represent the risk of death associated with antibiotic use adjusted for other baseline covariates. We’ve attempted to account for differences at baseline that may indicate patients are sicker, and so the reported risk represents mortality related with antibiotic exposure,” Dr. Ransohoff said.

Elucidating the role of the microbiome in mediating absolute lymphocyte counts and immune response may inform interventions to reduce triple-negative mortality, she said.